The parents of Charlie Gard are back in court this week, continuing the struggle to free their baby from captivity and bring him to the U.S. for treatment.
As you hopefully are aware by now, Connie Yates and Chris Gard have been fighting with courts and hospitals in the U.K. for the right to seek medical care for their sick baby. So far, European death panels have determined that Charlie must die, because, in their estimation, his life is no longer worth living. His parents are not allowed to bring him elsewhere for treatment, nor are they even permitted to bring their child home to die in their arms. He is being held as a condemned prisoner in a state funded hospital, with his mother and father permitted only visiting hours to come and weep over the child they are not allowed to save.
But Connie and Chris have been granted one last chance in court to prove the validity of the treatment they hope to obtain for Charlie in the United States. Any sane and decent person would say that it doesn't matter if some judge or some collection of doctors in London think the treatment will be ineffective. It's the only chance Charlie has, and his parents have the right to give it a shot. But it doesn't work that way because the laws in Europe are neither sane nor decent. Charlie had the misfortune of being born into a system of socialized medicine, where government officials get to decide who is worth saving and who must die on the altar of resource efficiency.
I don't know how this robed god will rule, but it doesn't look particularly good at the moment. Today the parents stormed out of the courtroom in a fury, understandably exhausted and fed up. God only knows the emotional and spiritual agony this mother and father are experiencing. It is terrible enough for your child to die. It is unthinkable to be forced to watch it happen as you are forbidden to do anything to stop it.
But perhaps the most monstrous thing about this whole ghastly affair is the reason repeatedly given for euthanizing a baby against the wishes of his parents: that he has a "right" to die. He must be killed for his own benefit. An AP article quotes a British professor of health care law who sums up this deranged position:
"Unlike the USA, English law is focused on the protection of children's rights," said Jonathan Montgomery, professor of health care law at University College London. "The USA is the only country in the world that is not party to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child; it does not recognize that children have rights independent of their parents."
Montgomery said that while it was right to consider the views of Charlie's parents, the court will not make a determination on this basis.
"This case is about Charlie's rights and what the evidence tells us that they require," he said. "That will be the only consideration of the judge at the hearing."
Rather than being honest and admitting that Charlie must perish because the Powers That Be don't see any value in his life, we must endure the disgusting spectacle of these monsters pretending they're killing him because they're very sure it's what he would want.
Now, the distinguished professor is correct that children don't have rights in the USA. A million abortions a year clearly testify to that. But nearly a third of all babies conceived in Europe are also aborted, so it's simply laughable to pretend that children have any rights at all there or here. Indeed, they have fewer rights there, because at least here, if they manage to survive the crucible of the womb, they are granted at least the right to be treated for deadly illnesses.
In Europe, on the other hand, healthy babies are killed in the womb, sick babies are killed when they're born, and if they somehow endure past infancy, they can be euthanized if they ever make the mistake of falling ill before their 18th birthday. Rights of children in Europe? What rights? All I see are dead bodies. And presiding over that mass grave are a bunch of self-righteous academics and government officials patting themselves on the back for being such excellent humanitarians.
Monsters. You damned monsters. Pray that nobody ever helps you "exercise your rights" that way.
And even if I could overlook all of the factors I've just mentioned -- which I most definitely cannot -- it still would be a farce to pretend that Charlie Gard has so-called independent rights. "Independence" in a hospital bed he is not allowed to leave until they carry his dead body to the morgue? That's what you call independence? Yes, he may be treated as independent from his parents, but that is so the government can step in and assume the authority that God has naturally bequeathed to the two people who conceived him and love him. Children are "liberated" from the clutches of their parents in Europe only so that they can become vassals of the State. They are far less free as State property than they would be if their parents were in charge of them.
In the end, of course, someone must be in charge of children. Children certainly cannot make decisions for themselves. They cannot actually be treated as emancipated adults because they are not adults. Someone must have authority over them. Someone must decide what is best for them. Over there, in the ever so enlightened and progressive Europe, that authority resides with bureaucrats, and they have decided that it is best for Charlie that he promptly expire. He has no right to keep living. He has only the right and privilege to die. And his benevolent executioners will see to it that this right is expressed.
Let me say one other thing about this "right to die" nonsense. It is not just a moral abomination, but a logical one. A dead person has no rights. To die is to finally and forever forfeit all rights. Death is the cessation of human rights. When you say a person has the right to die, what you are really saying is that he has the right to have no rights. In this case, you're saying he doesn't have the right to continue having rights. This is a very troubling interpretation of human rights. After all, if a person has the right to die, even without having expressed such a wish, then might a person have the right to be robbed? Beaten? Scammed? Tortured? Raped? What other "rights" do I have, which I do not benefit at all from exercising, and which I may be obliged to exercise against my will, and which necessitate the removal of all other rights?
This is the road you find yourself traveling down once the State assumes the role of both parent and God. It only leads one place, to death and despair. That is the only place it has ever led. Humanity has never learned this lesson, and it seems that we never will.
To see more from Matt Walsh, visit his channel on TheBlaze.